High Court · 2022

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Harshit Pathak and Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Bilal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2021, under Section- 302 IPC, Police Station- Rampur Maniharan, District- Saharanpur, pendency of trial.

3. There is allegation of murder of one, Shyamveer Saini, against the applicant and co-accused, Dilshad, in the FIR. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased and the applicant were doing the work of contractor together for five years regarding wood cutting and mango grove. The deceased was required to get Rs. 20 lakhs from the applicant and there was enmity between them. On 13.08.2021 at about 10:00 p.m., the applicant and the co-accused took the deceased, Shyamveer Saini, to their house and at 12:00 p.m., Noor Qureshi @ Asgar, the neighbour of the informant, informed that Shyamveer Saini has suffered fire-arm injury. Thereafter, the informant called the applicant on phone who called him to District Hospital, Saharanpur. When the informant reached there, he found Shyamveer lying dead. Hence, the applicant and co-accused, Dilshad, 2 were implicated in this case on the allegations of commtting culpable homicide amounting to murder.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that just after the incident the applicant took, Shyamveer, in the injured condition to the police station. In the G.D. Entry No. 106 dated 13.08.2021 entry has been made at 11:30 p.m to this effect that the applicant request for making majroobi chhitthi of the injured. Thereafter the deceased died and on 14.08.2021 inquest and post-mortem on his body was conducted. The statements of Smt. Babli, Km. Nishu, Ankit and Rahees, were recorded on 18.08.2021 wherein they supported the prosecution case. The applicant has been arrested on 19.08.2021 and from his pointing a country made pistol of 12 bore along with discharged cartridge have been recovered. Number of other statements of other witnesses were also recorded.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Soon after the incident he took the deceased to the police station and requested for making of majroobi chhitthi. The deceased who was alive at that time and he did not stated anything before the police against the applicant on the co-accused. He has further submitted that the FIR has been lodged falsely against the applicant. The motive of Rs. 20 lakhs being due against the applicant and payable to the deceased has been assigned for commission of alleged offence without any evidence. In the FIR, Noor Qureshi, has been mentioned as the person who informed the informant that the deceased has suffered gun shot injury but no statement of Noor Qureshi has been recorded by the Investigating Officer that the applicant had caused injury to the deceased by gunshot and he would never take him to the police station. The statement of the relatives of the deceased have been recorded but they are the interested witnesses. The applicant has criminal history of two cases under the Indian Forest Act explained in the rejoinder affidavit. 3 He is in jail since 19.08.2021 and has no other criminal history to his credit.

6. Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the deceased was called from his house by the applicant and the co-accused and thereafter he was injured and he subsequently died. No explanation has been given by the applicant as to how the deceased got injured. The applicant injured the deceased with intention to cause his murder in the night hours and took him to the police station at about 12 p.m. The injured was not in a position to speak at that time since he died before 3:00 p.m. He was on the verge of collapse when he was taken to the police station by the applicant and the applicant was fully aware that the deceased would not be able to state anything before the police since he was shot from behind. He has pointed out to the injury report of the deceased which shows a gunshot would of entry of size 4 cm x 4.5 cm, margin inverted, on back of left side chest, 2 cm. lateral to vertebral column with loss of tissue with multiple gunshot entry wound of size ranging from 0.2 cm x 0.25 cm. surrounding the above mentioned large wound with underlying fracture of left side ribs 9th and 10th. He has submitted that only the applicant and the co-accused had accompanied the deceased and therefore there is not possibility of causing the aforesaid injury by any third person. The implication of the applicant in two cases under Indian Forest Act proves that the applicant and the deceased were involved in the business of wood cutting.

7. After considering the rival submissions, this court finds that there is no explanation from the applicant’s side regarding the injury caused to the deceased. The deceaed went with the applicant and co-accused as per the allegation in the FIR and the statements of witnesses and thereafter the applicant took him to the police station on the same night to get his chhitti majroobi prepared which proves that the deceased went with him as per 4 allegation in the FIR. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

9. The bail application is accordingly, rejected. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two years. Order Date :- 26.08.2022 Rohit Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad